on fox business network, and if you don't get you should demand. joe barton, the republican of texas says the spending has to stop now. welcome to the "glenn beck program." i'm judge andrew napolitano in for glenn beck. we have a lot to do today. as we do it, remember this. they are the words of thomas jefferson. when the people fear the government, there is tyranny. when the government fears the people, there is liberty. you know what is coming. let's go! hello, america. today's show is about the loss of freedom. the loss of every person to make intelligent choices without guidance or interference or compulsion from the government. when the great country was founded, those who created the government understood that there are areas of personal choices that are none of the government's business. they fought a revolution. they wrote a constitution. they guaranteed that the

government they gave us would be far different than the one they fought against. we are an independent country today in large measure because the founding fathers had had enough of the british king and parliament telling them how to live. forcing them to sell goods where they didn't want to sell. taxing almost all their behavior. and disregarding their natural rights to speak, to engage in commercial activities of hair own choosing and to -- of their own choosing and be left alone. does it sound familiar? that was the complaint 230 years ago. it's happening all over again. except now, it's their own government. the people we chose and we hired to work for us are trampling our liberties. think about it. the air you breathe, the water you drink, the chair you're sitting in right now, the shower or the bath you took this morning. the tv you're looking at, even the shoes you are wearing are all regulated by bureaucrat in washington, d.c. it's hard to find an area of human behavior that the feds don't regulate. and all their regulations

have added to the size of government. increased taxes to the breaking point. and interfered with our intern personal choices in ways of those who created the great country could never have imagined. i'll give you a recent example. yesterday, a federal judge in california scolded the president and told him that he is subject to the same laws as the rest of us. that should not be news. but in the era of the nanny state, it is news. you see, the government thinks that so long as the majority rules, the majority is right. but that's not america. sure we have elections. and elections have consequences. but we also have rights. rights that come from god and not from the government. and the constitution was written to assure that we could freely exercise those rights. free from the bad guys and free from tyranny of majority and without the government on our backs. after months of protest, town hall meeting and polls that showed a lot of americans against so-called healthcare reform, the measure still

passed. just a couple of little problems remain, though, is it constitutional? and how will we pay for all of this? with us is dr. rand paul, running for the senate on the republican side in kentucky, and is also ophthalmologist. betsy mccoy, former lieutenant governor of state of new york. a patient's right advocate. and constitutional scholar. and fox business netwo network charlie gasbarino, a force of nature on his own. welcome to the "glenn beck program." how are we going to pay for this? where is the trillion going to come from? >> higher taxes. some states benefit and some don't. look at net-net, there has been some studies on this. the heritage foundation put together a good study. $11 billion in the hole for the state on a net-net bait analysis -- basis and comes from taxes. >> and from seniors. it's paid with tax hikes,

$500 billion and also with a $500 billion reduction in future medicare funding when 30% more people will be enrolled in medicare when they turn 65. those numbers do not add up. already, if you look at the timeline -- >> what is it that you're holding? what is this monstrosity? >> this is the first third of the new law. >> one third of the bill, of the law, eight or nine inches thick. >> right. it will be defeated by this. the 18 pages of the constitution. because this law is unconstitutional. but let's get back to seniors for a moment. because seniors and baby boomers are going to suffer the most. if you look at the timeline of how the act rolls out, in the first two years, there are cuts to medicare dialysis. medicare home care. medicare hospice care, medicare reimbursement to hos pi pist -- hospice and nursing home. the cuts are so severe they are opening express lane to cemetery.

>> how can the medical profession tolerate the cuts an and who will be hurt the most by them? >> a lot of physicians are demoralized and disheartened. i think what will happen ultimately is they will lessen the medicare patients they see, as the prices are cramped down. and if there is a shortage of funds. we are seeing the popular family doctors are not taking new medicare patients. there will be less care for people and there will be shortages. and ultimately, there won't be enough money so they will have to ration the care for everyone. >> our colleague brit hume was kidding but somebody on the floor of the house said this. we'll just write a law that makes waiting lines illegal. >> what you are saying is we are going to ensure healthy 20-year-olds. at the expense of the elderly. >> that's right. >> the chief actuary for medicare warned in a letter that cuts are so severe and what hospitals will be paid to take care of the elderly, some hospitals will simply

stop taking medicare. where will seniors go when their local hospice -- >> what burden, charlie, will be imposed on the states to make up? >> they'll have to -- that is the notion here. i read this and i don't understand it. i don't think congress understand what is is going on. there needs to be higher taxes on everybody. to ensure, this is the key thing from a moral issue. to insure 20-year-olds who are healthy, you have to cut services to the elderly. you have to. >> dr. paul, you are a member of a medical organization not the a.m.a., but another medical association that filed a lawsuit against secretary of health and human services alleging that this is unconstitutional. what do doctors, what do healthcare professionals say is wrong with this? >> this is aaps and the same group that sued hillary

clinton. we took it to the supreme court and won. we allege it violates the fifth amendment that you can't take things from people without just compensation and it violates the tenth amendment that the rights were not emnumerated given to the federal government that have been traditionablely under state government. you mentioned this appears as if the federal government comm commandeering what functions were left to the state. we have a good chance in court but we are also fighting it electorally. there will be a big fight over this in november. >> we talked on my radio show about this. i was in florida this weekend with glenn beck, and a florida legislator chatted with us and told us the state of florida now has to spend $1 billion more than it has. that is the congress saying to florida raise your state taxes by a billion dollars and spend it the way we tell you to. the legislator looked at me and said, "i thought we were an independent legislature, i

thought we could decide what taxes are and how we would spend the people's moneymoney." >> there will be great expenditure by state government and private industry. at&t talked about $1 billion more in expenditures. the bill also calls for 16,500 new i.r.s. agents. someone is going to collect new premiums. >> the write-down by the corporation, huge. they are required to do that by the s.e.c., and the congress is furious that this happens while the ink isn't dry. >> what is scary about the bill is the amount of demagoguery that surrounds it. if you're not for it, you're a racist. if you are a corporation, and you need to write down stuff you get before you go before congress because it's supposed to create savings. that is the scary thing if you think about it. to create $138 billion of savings in ten years -- by the way, $13 billion a year is not a lot of money in the context of our economy -- you have to raise taxes

dramatically and you have to take massive write-downs if you're a company. >> i want you to wear your political and scholarly hat. you wore the attorney general of the state of new york and recognized scholar on the constitution. question: where is this more likely to die? in the federal court system, or by the people rising up and electing a different president in three years and a different congress in eight months? and the political system taking this away from us. >> it's likely there will be a sufficient victory in the congressional races that will have majorities in congress to defund this bill. not necessarily with a veto-proof majority to repeal it, but it's highly likely that the high court will reject substantial portions of the legislation. for example -- >> what parts will it reject? >> pages 148 and 49, this act for the first time in history says that the federal government can dictate how doctors treat privately insured patients. when you're aetna, cigna,

united healthcare, any of the plans, the federal government can say to the doctors you cannot participate in the private insurance system unless you do everything that the federal government says. it means they are going to be on the driver's seat for whether you get a stent or bypass, caesarean, whether your obgyn orders a pap smear or pelvic sonogram. everything in medical care. >> what will it do to the practice of medicine? if you have to report to the federal government what your patient tells you, a conversation, about the supreme court has said is the most private and immune from government intrusion that we can have. the patient-physician conversation. you as a physician, if you were to follow this, instead of going into the senate, would have to report to some federal bureaucrat what your patient told you and be guided or regulated by the federal bureaucrat as what you can do. are american doctors trained to be subject to intrusion and commands of federal bureaucrats when it comes to treating their patients?

>> so much they want it to be electronic records they're giving doctors $40,000 apiece to change to electronic records but they also want access to electron electronic r. it concerns me about patient privacy. i don't want the government looking at my records or any other patient's records. it's a real danger. i was in the state capital today talking about trying to get our attorney general in kentucky to join a lawsuit against this. we had 300 people there. it's part of the tea party movement. people are not happy, but there is still great momentum on the countryside to try to change this. >> what is the financial community think about this? do they think this is left wing politics run amok? >> we have been talking all day about jamie diamon saying we're sick of being demonized. wall street supported obama in a major way. unprecedented.

>> that was then. >> four times more to obama than they gave to mccain-palin. right now, they are really worried. not just rhetoric. they are worried instead of reforming healthcare, we created entitlement. instead of maybe helping the people at the bottom end of the ladder, we redistribute the wealth and they are worried about what this does to the deficit. they may not go public with it, but you can talk to every single wall street ceo and they can't believe he turned to this instead of deficit reduction. >> aren't you worried as a patient advocate that innocent human beings, whether they're healthy 20-year-olds or 75-year-olds who need to see a physician more regularly will be powerless here? there is a clause in here that prohibits an appeal from a decision of bureaucrat. if a bureaucrat says to dr. paul you may only perform this service on this patient, that decision is final. >> right. doctors will be forced to choose between what is right for their patients and avoiding a government

penalty. women right advocates who fought for woman to choose for reproductive issue and keep records private need to reassess the impact of the law on their value. if you're pro-life or pro-choice you lose under obama care. >> dr. paul, can you bring yourself to put down in the government laptop everything your patients tell you and wait for the government to come back and say okay, doctor. we decided that this is the procedure. this is the medicine. this is the budget. >> being a physician is not following an alogram and everything is out of a cookbook. there is intelligent interaction and the choice is not the same as what comes out of a book. i don't think that's the way we want to practice medicine. talking about the cost, the congressional budget office said that the prescription drug plan would only cost $400 billion. it's costing $1 trillion.

the implications of this, they say they will have $500 billion in savings from medicare. but it's based on assumptions that congress gave to them. it's not based on reality. when you make something free, it's overutilized. that is what will happen here. it will cost two or three times more than what they say it will cost. >> there is a crazy thing about the reserve corps, the 6,000-person -- >> i don't know what to make of it. >> the president can put together and script doctors from the state national guard. >> bringing back the draft. >> almost is bringing it back. where is that going to go? are we going to get to a system like great britain where the healthcare providers are employees of the government? >> that's what it looks like. we are moving in that direction. there will be a fight over this. what i don't understand -- maybe the doctor can explain this -- how did the a.m.a. support the nonsense? >> that's -- remember that only 17% physicians belong to the a.m.a. and many of them are not physicians who actually care for patients.

>> what physicians in their right minds could support this, dr. paul? >> right. i think this actually will lower their membership. the a.m.a. has been struggling for years and they do not represent doctors across the country. aaps has been growing dramatically, as doctors who want to fight against big government join together under a different banner. but the a.m.a. doesn't represent me. i've never been a member of the a.m.a. they don't represent my physician and n support -- my position supporting obama-care. >> do federal judges have the moral courage and fortitude to look at this thing and say this did not come from the constitution? >> i believe they will. in fact, there is a very important case, gonzalez versus oregon, which was just decided a couple of years ago that made it clear that the federal government does not have the power to regulate the practice of medicine, or impose medical standards and regulate how doctors treat patients. >> dr. rand paul, former governor mccaughey and

charlie gasparino, thank you for joining us. this is census day. they say to answer a bunch of question. what does the constitution require? we'll be right back.

all right.

if you haven't heard, it's census day, the deadline for everyone to return the u.s. census form, unless you want visit from a federal worker. the forms count the number of people in each household and are used to allocate federal money and congressional seats. but some will be asked dozens of questions about intimate private behavior that occurs within the household. plus, the government will demand each form that you received be answer or you pay a fine. is this constitutional? is it an invasion of privacy? here to explain, kevin gutsman, associate professor of history at western connecticut state university and author of the terrific book "the politically incorrect guide to the constitution." and ilias shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the cato institute and editor in chief of the cato supreme court review. to you, first. has the supreme court, itself, ever declared whether or not the questions beyond how many persons reside in this house as their principal

residents are constitutional? >> there are some offhappened remarks from an old case 140 years ago to the effect it is. but that was not at all the case presented before the supreme court. so there really is no four-square ruling on the question. >> have lower federal courts, kevin, looked at the questionnaire that was sent out a few weeks ago? i'm talking about the one that asks about nationality, religion, ethnicity, gender, number of bathrooms, when you go to work, when you go to bed, those personal questions. has any court scrutinized those questions? >> not in any case i'm aware of. >> all right. how do we get from the constitution saying we have to have a house of representatives, so we have to know how many people live there, because the house of representatives is apportioned by population. how do we get from that in the constitution to the 20-page form that wants to know everything about me?

>> because we have nanny state and people in the federal government want to know about your personal life to legislate about them down the road. >> does the government have the right to ask this stuff? isn't there a basic right to privacy, which says i don't have to tell you, even though it's not going to kill me to stay it, but i have a certain sense of personal dignity i don't want the government to come across the threshold of my front door? >> two issues here. first, does the government have the power? i say it doesn't. the article one, section two, says enumeration shall be made indeed for the apportionment of representatives in congress. beyond, that it's silent. on the other hand, people do have a right to privacy and to not having to do things when the government commands them to do things. we have all sorts of rights. so on both of those sides, this is a questionable practice.

as you said, some of the questions are ridiculous, like do you need help? how many people in your household need help bathing or dressing for example? >> why does the government want to know this stuff? how does it advance the cause of government? what is the source of their appetite for the information? >> well, there is a difference between the appetite and what is constitutional. the people have the -- >> talk to me about the appetite. >> i think they want to improve every aspect of your life, whether it's the filament in the light over your head or plunger in your toilet, and before they can do, that they have to know how many plungers and filaments you have. they have an unconstitutional program and they intend to further it by first gathering information about you. i think one point that needs to be made is not only do we not have any grant to congress, power to do this thing, but we have explicit reservation of all the powers that aren't granted to the states. so -- >> people respectively. >> right. the tenth amendment stands explicitly for the idea that congress should not be doing this. >> ilya, as i understand the

law, a lot of people e-mail me about this, so we did the research. the government can fine you $ $100 for every unanswered question, $500 for every wrongfully answered question. maximum of $5,000 for whatever you do on the form that the government doesn't like. there is no jailtime involved. do you think people are just going to send the government a check and tell them to go take a hike? >> i tried to look it up as well. i've only been able to find seven times when people have been absolutely prosecuted and finfined. twice after the 1960 census and five times after the 1970 census. each was $50 or $100 fine and that's it. all the times the people were outspoken census protesters, let's say. so, you know, if you just send it back and don't make a fuss, that is probably a good strategy for, you know, a census worker might come or something, but it's unlikely you will be prosecuted for it.

>> from fprofessor, my hypothetical. i'm in the living room and knock on the door. f.b.i. shows up and census take aer. the f.b.i. is there to arrest me and put me in handcuffs and the census worker is there to ask 34 million questions. he says answer the questions. the f.b.i. says you have a right to remain silent. do i have more rights as person being arrested than i do as the census taker coming in my house? >> you are getting to the fact that fourth amendment would protect you if you suspected of being criminal. they'resierting if you -- asserting if you aren't suspected of being a criminal, they can make you divulge the information that could be a secret or up to you to retain for yourself if you weren't suspected of having done anything. >> i can only imagine what it's like ten years from now. the census from ten years ago it was peanuts compared to this one. every year, the appetite of the government for private information grows greater. what can we do about it?

>> we go on shows and watch shows like you're doing now and write letters to the editor and complain to the congressman and try to rein in the growing government that tries to aggrandize itself at each point. if you look at the marketing of the census this year, it's like a lottery. you can't win if you don't play. the idea that the government has to grow and provide more goodies. only reason it's there is to be a trough to eat more stuff. it goes against the founding principles of the republic. >> do you think that the government will keep the information or -- strike the government. do you think the commerce department will keep the information private and to itself as it claims? do you think anybody takes that promise seriously, kevin? >> we don't have any reason to think they'd keep it secret there. there has never been success in the effort to keep it secret. a point that needs to be made is a lot of people seem to be upset with the long census form, so they are omitting to

respond to the census at all. >> they should respond to the number of people that live there. >> otherwise, their own districts will be underrepresented and the states will be underrepresented in congress. they should respond to constitutional questions. >> kevin, ilya, thank you for joining us. want to know what glenn beck has to say about the census? some of his fans wrote in and asked him if he planned fill out the form sent to him by the government. it's part of the ask glenn anything. anything show that is going to air tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. >> this one sent in from woman named annie b. she says i received my census and i don't feel i should have to give them all the information they ask for. how much by law, if anything, do we have to provide? >> we have a census form we just got. i'll answer how many people live in your home. period. they have added an added these questions, you know, and we've been answering all of these questions. now that we're seeing how much they're gathering, no.

i oom a stickler on the constitution. >> stickler on the constitution. he answers more questions tomorrow at 5:00 on the "glenn beck program." it's a special show. the cities facing financial collapse. are unions feeding them to the poorhouse? could that be? we'll be right back. identity theft,

one of the fastest growing crimes in america. even if you think you're doing everything right, and hiding that social security number,

you must still give it to your employer, your doctor, your accountant, insurance, school. the list goes on and on. and the identity thieves know who you must give it to. that's who they target. and that's why you need lifelock's new identity alert system... which goes beyond just new credit. it's like having a digital fingerprint. if a new application doesn't match you, we send an alert and help fix it for you. join lifelock and get alerts to important information, a one million dollar service guarantee... plus a team of identity theft protection specialists. this identity theft protection is only $9.95 per month... and comes with a 60-day money back guarantee. today's enrollments also include... a free document shredder. call now and mention "today"... or visit lifelock.com. ♪

i'm patti ann browne. president obama makes a trip to the waterlogged northeast.

he is expected to address the flooding during his visit. today he gave a healthcare speech in maine. tonight he will attend two democratic fundraisers in boston. lawyers for the doctor who was at michael jackson's bedside when he died are fighting to let the physician keep practicing ahead of his trial. they filed papers today to quash a bid by california's attorney general to suspend conrad murray's medical license. big posting by u.s. auto makers ford and general motors for march. 40% gain for ford. 21% for g.m. toyota sales surged, too, by whopping 41%. glenn beck returns in a moment and judge napolitano, but first, chris wallace previews special report. >> coming up, we look at what republicans need to do to regain control of congress. and why the catholic church is striking back at the "new york times." join me at 6:00 eastern for "special report." ♪ ♪

the $1 trillion gap in retiree benefits in this country, according to the pew center on the states. and since state and local governments will be footing the bill for the shortfall, it works out to more than $8800 for every american household. now cities like memphis, toledo and los angeles trying to pinch pennies leaning on the unions. have unions priced themselves out of a job in ask mark mix, president of the national right to work committee and charles payne ceo of wall street strategies and my colleague, contributor on the fox business network. charles, to you first. what is the problem? what is happening? what have governments just recognized about unions and their benefits and their pensions? >> they made promises they can't keep and if they keep them, all heck is going to break loose, because seriously, what we're talking about, judge, 90% of the -- you have all the people working for the government.

they have the pensions. they'll retire 57, 60. people are going to have to pay the pensions, have to work until they're 60, 70 years old and have no pension. imagine this, you get up every morning and go to work and you don't have a pension. they're taking money out of your paycheck to pay someone else sitting on a beach who retired six years earlier. >> are these iron-clad contracts that governments stuck with them can't change? is this like the u.a.w. and general motors where there can only be a change if the union agrees to relent and give back? or is there something that can be done about this, even if the unions won't play ball? >> judge, i think we are going to find out. most of the contracts are allegedly ironclad but we have a city in california where we get a peek at what may happen. vallejo, california, filed chapter 9 bankruptcy because they made promises the taxpayers couldn't keep. they voided one contract, the judge allowed the city to set

aside a couple others but the issue about the pension is still relevant. we're going to see, i think a lot of municipalities and cities and counties and states for that matter are watching the case to see what is going to happen. they've made promises they can't keep. >> we were talking during the break about los angeles, the mayor of los angele los angeles good and long-time friend and loyal supporter of the president. even he is leaning on the unions. >> he is trying to get the unions to make concessions. california is at the tip. they have a huge unfunded portion of their pension. also, there are other obligations, post-retirement op ligation like health benefit and none is covered. $46 billion, none of it is funded. they have to do something immediately. >> if the unions don't cave and the courts don't interfe interfere, will non-union workers be working for less money so union workers can continue to receive the

higher hourly wages and cadillac health plan negotiated by the government when they thought the money would never run out? >> we are past the rrubicahn on that. franklin roosevelt said the margin cannot be applied to the public sector. we put to book "municipal doomsday machine." we were 40 years too early but now the bargaining agreements are coming to a head in a difficult financial time and it exposes the difficulty that the states will have to fund the contract. >> put the gap chart on the screen, showing gap, difference between private and public sector. isn't that crazy, charles? that the benefits for

government would be so much more fantastic as private sector? >> it's crazy. eight of ten jobs, sectors the government workers make more. we grew up when you worked for government and you make less and get a retirement on the back end. now you get it both ways. the government is getting bigger, not larger. not the state and local but the federal government is growing like crazy. >> how did we get to this point in our history, where you can make more -- this never happened before. that you make more money doing the same job in the government that you did in the private sector. for 200 years or maybe until f.d.r., maybe for 150 years it was the other way around. how did this happen? >> i believe the reason it happened is dramatic expansion in union power. judge, when you have a monopoly, government by definition and apply a monopoly model to it, the bargaining system used in the government sector, you have real trouble. this was baked in the cake going back to 1955 in wisconsin, 1962 when

president roosevelt signed executive order to allow union bargaining for federal employees and we have seen a great increase in number of states that have the bargaining procedures where the union officials elect politicians that sit on the other side of the table during the negotiations. because of the financial crisis we're, in we are seeing it. >> that is the point, charles. as i understand the law in most states, the government unions can't go on strike. although they have here, as you know. you remember, the trains were shut down. the unions get their friends on the other side of the bargaining table. we had it in new jersey. the governor was the boyfriend of the head of the chief labor union with whom he was negotiating. he's no longer the governor. how did they handle that? >> put it this way. i did a study. the top ten states with the most union workers with new york at the top 27%, out of those top ten, nine voted for the president obama. of the bottom ten states, non-union, nine were red states.

think about this. huge electoral college votes and get those states to go and add in people on welfare and a few others you have won the white house again, even though you may be destroying the entire country. >> charles payne, mark mix, thank you very much for joining us on this troublesome topic. next, americans cherish their right to free speech. perhaps above all other rights. how is your right to free speech being chipped away? right back. @útçñçpqç?p@÷@÷@

the right to s

>> [brief technical difficulty] >> not only may the government not interfere with speech, but the government may not force or compel speech. so question: the government signs a healthcare law, enacts a healthcare law. the president signs it into law. corporations say they think they'll lose money as a result of the law. then they are dragged before congressional committee to say how are you going to lose money and how can you say you'll lose money and why are you saying it now? is that constitutional? >> i have no idea if it's constitutional or not. you are the expert on that.

i think the government has a right to speak out. the amendment protects all of our speech. it's news to me it's unconstitutional to compel speech. there are plenty of situations that people compel others to speak, to compel testimony. you need to educate me about that. >> all right. we'll talk about that one, because if the information sought is private and not available to the government or flip-side, if the information is in the government hands, like in the s.e.c. what right does the government have to drag the ceos in and make them answer questions under oath? another problem for you -- >> can i jump in? >> please. >> it seems to me, one thing i appreciate about a lot of the transpartisan movements going on now is the constitution tran skre scends everything. we can agree that the government secrecy has been excessive in government and corporate secrecy has been

excessive. so as a citizen, i'd rather have too much transparentsy and too much compulsion to disclose and too many details in the hands of the people from government and corporation than too few. rather in that direction. >> when members of congress call tea partiers racists is there some sort of implicit threat or effort to infringe free speech of tea partiers? racist a brush when someone is tainted with it, it's difficult to get that off. >> yeah, i agree it's a strong term. it'd want to see on what basis representatives are calling citizens racists. it is strong language. but i'm a first amendment absolutist. if some thing strikes someone, whether they're representative or postal worker, homemaker as racist, they should be able to say so. and the jefferson always held is bad speech or wrong speech or accurate speech should be

addressed as more speech. if people are offended like that, if the tea partiers are offended by, that they should speak up. that's what the first amendment was supposed to do, strengthen the republic having the government and citizens in firm and robust communication with each other. it's good. different to think about what racism means. >> more with naomi wolf. we'll be right back. 

back with naomi wolf, the latest book is "end of america." recently, a federal judge in san francisco hearing the case about warrantless wiretapping ruled i hope the president is subject to the same laws as the rest of us, told president bush now that he's out the case and president obama now that he's in the case, if you want to listen to someone's telephone calls, gettelfinger permission. is this the end of it are they going to listen to the conversations without a search warrant? >> i wish the c.i.a. had a direct phone line to tell me what they're doing. i have no idea if this is the end. we have a long history going to the '50s of illegal wiretapping and infiltration of the intelligence service and the f.b.i. i certainly as a citizen was

delighted and relieved to have heard that decision. i think citizens are becoming aware that surveillance is part of a police state and every dictator whether on the right or the left, whether, you know, chinese communists or mussolini started to police state through surve surveilling ordinary citizens and always justify it in the name of national security. >> does the government really think there is an exception in the constitution for national security? i mean they took an oath to uphold the constitution, not just parts of it they like but all parts of it. >> it is shocking. anyone who reads the fourth amendment understands that the founders put that in, because ordinary citizens were having the homes broken into by mercenary soldiers and having the private papers gone through and having things confiscated without the crown taking the trouble to go to imagine tr imagin magi.

it's creeping that our communication are not confidential. activists have the mail tampered with and that the phone calls are listened to and e-mails are read. this is the thing once it reaches past a certain point you can't go back. all of us have secrets, maybe not illegal but personal things, things we tell a therapist or accountant. the government can use it against us. >> hopefully the government will stick to the constitution since the federal judge told them they need to do so. we'll be back with a couple of final thoughts in a minute. fifty-eight different individuals are using,

absolutely using my old social security number. my credit score just went out the window. identity theft can be devastating. that's why lifelock is proactive protection, working to help stop identity theft before it happens.

and the biggest difference is stopping it before it starts. lifelock's exclusive identity alert system... goes beyond mere credit monitoring, which only alerts you after the theft. with lifelock, it's like having a digital fingerprint. if a new application doesn't match you, we send an alert. and if needed, we help fix the identity theft. don't wait another minute. call now. go with the industry leader. join lifelock and get alerts to important information, a one million dollar service guarantee... plus a team of identity theft protection specialists. enroll now and get ten percent off your enrollment... for you and your entire family with today's special offer. call today and mention i.d. alert... or go to lifelock.com. loss of freedom comes in many of freedom comes in many forms. sometimes it's direct and profound like when the government stops you from doing what you formerly had the freedom to do, like

choose your own doctor and your own healthcare provider, or choose not to have healthcare insurance. sometimes it's more subtle. like when the government prints money to pay its bills and as a reorelt all the money you already have loses some of its value. sometimes freedom is lost when the federal government compels the states to bend to its will, and all the laws in all the states become uniform. president reagan was fond of saying because the states are independent of each other and in some areas independent of the federal government, you can vote with your feet. if you want let government, move to new hampshire. if you want more government, move to massachusetts. but if the federal government makes the laws oppressive in every state, there is nowhere to move. let me ask you, america. what is freedom? freedom is the ats blity of every person to exercise his own free will and conscience, rather than be subject to the will of a bureaucrat of the government. free will is gift from god.

the government cannot take it away nou away. in the christian world, today is holy thursday, known as the last is upper in literature and art. the last supper was a je to ish passover and the final meal that jesus ate before he died. at the supper he performed two miracles. he transformed bread and wine in his own body and blood. and he empowered his diciples and their successors to do the same. on good friday, commemorated tomorrow he was eevecuted for rmeaiming to be god. he died so we might be set free from sin and oppression. three days later on easter, he rose from the dead. easter has a meaning that is both simple and incomprehensible. easter means that there is hope for the dead and if there is hbe see for the dead, there is hope for the living. and we the living can only achieve our hbe see hbe sees if